After saying "the F-35 will replace the A-10" only to have the A-10 skunk the shit out of the F-35, the Air Force is now saying "We like the A-10, but we need something that we can fly for less than $5k an hour."

Nor is Reaper cheaper to operate, despite initial appearances. Air Force flying hour cost data shows Reaper to cost only $3,624 per hour to fly in 2011 for what the Air Force terms “operational” flying hour costs.[9] That compares to the much higher hourly cost to fly A-10s or F-16s: $17,780 per hour for the newly modified A-10C and $20,809 for an F-16C. However, because each Reaper flies a large number of hours in the air, the math suppresses the per-hour Reaper number. If the calculation is for total maintenance costs over the course of a year for a Reaper unit, the relationship changes: at a per year cost of $5.1 million, per individual Reaper, and at $20.4 million per CAP, the Reaper shows itself to be well above the cost to maintain and operate over a year for an individual A-10C (at $5.5 million) or an F-16C (at $4.8 million).[10] Annual operating unit cost for a Reaper unit is about four times the annual cost to operate an F-16 or an A-10.

The A-10 costs between $19,000 and $20,000 per hour to fly. Welsh said he would like to see an aircraft that cost between $4,000 to $5,000 per hour.

Stopped reading right there... Predictably KB has already provided the exact information I was going to ask about, and the disconnect between the USAF and reality is as wide as ever.

Everyone but the Air Force brass loves the A-10. I get that the airframes are older than dirt and probably need to be replaced (then again, we still fly B-52's), but why don't we just dust off the old A-10 plans, digitize them, maybe do a bit of modern CFD magic on the aerodynamics, and crank out some new Super-Warthogs?